Amid speculation over whether Iran will respond to Israel’s recent airstrikes on Iranian territory, a spokeswoman for the Iranian government said Tuesday that Iran has a “legitimate right” to self-defense and warned it will exercise that right at the “appropriate time and place.”
A day earlier, Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, downplayed the Israeli attack on Iran, saying it was “much ado about nothing.” He said Israel was trying to start a regional war, saying it “has the potential to set the volatile Middle East region on fire and to create the spark that would set the regional powder keg alight.”
The Israeli strikes on Iran were launched early Saturday morning and killed four Iranian soldiers and one civilian. Iran has downplayed the damage that was done to its air defenses, saying everything has already been repaired, while Western media reports say some air defense systems were completely destroyed.
Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said the Israeli attack was an attempt to distract from Israel’s failures in Gaza and Lebanon. “The Zionist regime is gravely mistaken in thinking it can disrupt the unity of the Iranian people with such actions. It fails to realize that such actions only strengthen our national solidarity,” she said, according to Iran’s PressTV.
Mohajerani also announced that Iran would be increasing its military budget by 200% to build up its defenses. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Iran spent $10.3 billion on its military in 2023. The new budget is expected to be finalized by Iran’s parliament in March 2025.
Mohajerani made clear the plans to significantly increase the military budget was a response to Israeli aggression in the region.
The Israeli attack came after Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1 in response to a series of Israeli escalations in the region, including the killing of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, while he was visiting Tehran. The Iranian attack killed one Palestinian in the West Bank, who was hit by shrapnel, and damaged some Iranian military sites.
I am no fan of Iran's theocracy, but it is notable that the only one exercising any restraint in this situation is Iran.
I agree, despite as a Westerner being exposed to decades of indoctrination against Iran, partly loosely leaning on facts, partly completely made up – and I was personally eager to believe it because of my aversion of theocracies – it takes inordinate amounts of credulity or feasance to the propaganda effort to not see they are the only adults in the room.
And I can't express how saddened I am by the fact that they are also representing the civilized party in the whole equation. I am ashamed to admit that it took for the West to engage in or make themselves an accessory to genocide to reveal our true nature. I cannot help but feel orphaned, disillusioned and abused of my naivity.
A large portion of the West are theocracies to this day. King Charles III is head of the Church of England not only for the UK but 15 Commonwealth nations (hi, Canada!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
A large portion of Europe has state-funded national churches, also in many cases in conjunction with royalty. Large portions of Latin America have concordats with the Vatican which allows input from the latter on government matters. With few exceptions, the West = theocracies, less now than ever but still formally and legally and financially there.
It always cracks me up when people make reference to a theocracy, Iran is usually meant, in one sentence and the UK for example in the next without pause to consider that Big Ears himself to whom the British military swears fealty is head of a state church, and while many consider a Catholic portion of the state still to be under military occupation, and with a significant Muslim minority whose faith is similarly formally lesser.
The King? Hah ! I didn't vote for him !
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you !"
Also the US is de facto a theocracy. Try get elected for anything while being atheist. But state you believe the earth is 4000 years old, the earth is flat and covered under a giant piece of dark glass with pinholes in it and you're on your way to become President of the whole freakshow.
It's always a good time to read one of Justin Raimondo's oldy goody: https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052803.html
If you don't read the entire article attached in my first comment, here's the most important paragraph: "The idea that we are going to establish "democracy" in Iran by overthrowing the region's largest functioning democracy – Tehran is presided over by an elected President, albeit one whose power is circumscribed by the unelected theocracy – is typical of the absurdities now being promulgated by the neocons. Their preferred candidate to succeed President Mohammed Khatami: the son of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi. Replacing a democratically-elected President with a King installed by U.S. force of arms – that's the neocons' idea of "democracy.""
– Justin Raimondo
I had to include that because just this week in October 2024–GUESS WHO IS INTERVIEWED AS THE LIGITEMATE LEADER OF IRAN WHO WE SHOULD SUPPORT!?
Thanks for that (I did read the article though, impressive as to how well that aged.) I needed exactly one guess. Apparently he's as modest as "crown princes" come. He proposes to not become Iran's new dictator at all. The US should install him and then he promises to be a "transitional democratic leader". It is truly a remarkable effort to describe how unfathomably low his opinion of Iranians is and immeasurably gullible he thinks the American public is. Well, he probably measured that to the neocons swarming around him. What a sad git.
Only one exercising restraint. Are you kidding?
No, not kidding at all. Israel is the one engaging in land theft, settler expansion, a grotesque war of extermination, and multiple provocations of Iran to turn this whole thing into a region wide war. All this is to further their quest for the conquering of "Greater Israel", which like all atrocities is better pursued under the fog of war.
And Oct 7 was Hamas exercising restraint? Or Hezbollah firing missiles at Israel since Oct 8 was restraint? And Iran twice attacking Israel was restraint?
Yes your are kidding yourself it you think Israel enemies show restraint. The only think that stop them from attacking and destroying Israel is the IDF.
I never said I supported Hamas’ tactics, even though they have the right of armed resistance as an occupied people. Hezbollah has been firing rockets to get Israel to stop the slaughter.
Iran had been responding in a measured way to Israeli assassinations, and attacks on their diplomatic missions in Lebanon.
All of this, of course, was started by Israel on May 14, 1948, when they illegally declared themselves a nation, and proceeded to forcibly remove 750k people from their homes. They have been on the aggressive march ever since then, stealing land and killing innocent people for 76 years. Quit smoking so much hasbara, it’s bad for your health.
If Iran's attack on Israel hadn't been a legitimate retaliatory strike, the US/Israel would have responded with a devastating attack on Iran that would have made the recent Israel/US response look timid in comparison. So, taking that into consideration it's obvious Iran is the more restrained.
That logic makes no sense.
Let me explain it for you Timmy. If Iran had done an attack that wasn't a retaliation for what Israel did, they would have been attacked unmercifully. So, Iran showed immense restraint by not attacking Israel unmercifully when they bombed the Iranian consulate in Syria. Or when they assassinated the Hamas official who was there to honor Iran's new president. Or when they assassinated Iran's nuclear scientists inside of Iran. Or when they sabotaged Iran's (monitored) civilian nuclear facilities. Which means, Timmy, that they showed restraint. Then and now. Something that the US/Israel would not have done under similar circumstances. Now, let that sink in for a while and maybe you'll get my point.
Precisely…!
Norman Finkelstein concurs. He said something like, "somebody" needs a regional conflagration to cover up their gen@ciding of "somebodies." That's not exactly what he said, but I don't want my comment removed.
Don't break the rules and your comments will not be removed. They never removed any of my comments and if they did so what? I would not be whining about it like a 16 year old girl not being allowed to stay out past midnight.
No, it wasn't. This is a completely misleading notion. Finkelstein is not a military type, so he doesn't get it.
What Israel is doing is at the behest of the US neocons as well as their own desires. What they are doing is starting a major Middle East war in which both of them think they can eliminate all of the US' and Israel's enemies and also remove Iran to deny China oil in order to crash the Chinese economy and deny oil for the upcoming US-China war.
That they can not achieve this goal is irrelevant. It was always impossible for Ukraine to beat Russia or to crash Russia's economy but they tried that anyway – because as Andrei Martyanov says daily, they are ignorant and uneducated and don't understand military "Correlation of Forces and Means".
Try to get the Big Picture. Don't fall for simplistic explanations of events.
Israel must employ restraint and the US can lead the way…
Could but won't.
Au revoir, Shoshanna.
The poise exhibited by the Iranian leadership must be unnerving to the Israeli gov't
TBH I'm more concerned about restraining the Palestinian Genocide by Israel and the USA. Wars are bad, genocides are much worse.
Said that, I believe that Iran is preparing something very big, judging on their overall declarations and the fact that the IRI (or someone, not actually claimed AFAIK) has been bombing US military bases in Syria quite hardly, especially Al Tanf, which is right in the middle of the road between Tehran and Jerusalem, and is probably quite broken by now. The US complicity in the Israeli attack is extremely obvious and it's doubtful that Iran will tolerate US military presence in Iraq and Syria anymore, however, in order to avoid direct confrontation with the distant superpower, they may leave those "preparations" to their local allies. As for Iraq, it is a failed state like Lebanon or Somalia, with most of the people cheering for Iran and the Resistance, so it should not be too difficult to have them aligned with Iran-Syria when they decide to strike with everything (land invasion included).
"Iran is preparing something very big" That would be stupid of them.
Why? Should such a regional power with the clout of moral superiority and the security of nuclear deterrance let the tiny racist genocidal colony and its degraded and very remote protector superpower get away with their bullying or rather fight when they have the opportunity of a rather easy total victory?
They can totally subvert the region if they play their hand well. All the USA has is evil tyrants doing their worst in terms of genocide and corruption, as usual. That’s actually the stupid thing and it belongs to Uncle Sam. When did the USA won easy? When it sided with the good guys such as Kosovo or the Kurds… but apparently they dislike to act properly and prefer the evil ones, the ones who tend to lose because nobody likes them.
The "proof" being a grainy picture of something burning at some point somewhere.
This is like the "proof" of "North Koreans are going to attack in Kursk" is a video of some Asian-looking soldiers receiving uniforms in a room. Could be North Koreans, could be Asians in eastern Russia, could be any kind of training or other activity.
But talking about North Korean soldiers attacking Ukraine's soldiers gives some legitimacy to Biden's ongoing support for this failing war, and talking about Iran's air defenses being wiped out like Israel claims boosts both Israel and Biden. Oh, Biden's vice president is running for office by the way, what a coincidence.
The same lot crowing that "international law" allows a 3rd party state (like NATO) assist a party who was invaded (like Ukraine), MUST rationally concede that a 3rd party state (like the DPRK) is equally permitted to assist a party who was invaded (the Russian Federation, in Kursk).
Can DPRK forces press into Ukraine ? No. In the same way NATO forces may not press into Russian Federation territory. In both cases, such action would constitute an act of war by said 3rd party.
The simpler reason is that it would next to impossible to coordinate a North Korean military force into the Russian military force without causing chaos for the Russians, even if they spoke the language which they don't.
In other words, Koreans would be useless to the Russians even if they needed them – which they don't.
Small units of Koreans come to Russia for training in Russian weapons systems and perhaps Russian doctrine. That can be handled in a training scenario – not on a battlefield.
Again to my previous fix. Point to a spot on a map. Have a translator say “Here – kill everyone dressed like these asshats” (the DPRK has the Metric System; “asshat” will translate properly), show ’em pics of the Ukrainian Super Soldiers (SS) and their tech, and point ’em towards Kursk.
I don’t know that aristocrat British officers spoke Punjabi’i, Nepalese, or Newfoundlandesh in WW1, but they got their orders across easy enough to those Commonwealth underlings who did.
Hardly the same thing comparing WWI with modern war – not to mention that Britain already knew the languages from their colonial time and probably a lot of Indian officers learned English. But it's more a technology issue and a doctrine issue. Your notion of how military engagements are conducted is ridiculous.
Not possible.
Not PLAUSIBLE, perhaps. A good many things are entirely*possible*.
Death to Zionism!
Where you been? I miss your daily hate rants which start with "Death to" fill in the blank.
You are a vile genocide supporter.
A complete piece of shit.
To hell with you and every evil bastard like you.
Well somebody is having a bad day and it is not me.
Better than 50 50 that Trump sweeps in.
Anyway to call that a good day?
Due to its long history of war crimes and now genocide, Zionism needs to die..
You're a liar and no-one should believe anything you say.
The square root of 16 is 4, did I just lie? LOL.
Ah, so you DO know what a factually accurate statement looks like. Pity you don’t ever use them.
"…that Iran has a “legitimate right” to self-defense…"
Oh s**t. By Apartheid State of Israel Reasoning, that means the IRI can "legally" start murdering civilians in neighbouring Iraq.
They won't, of course, but Precedent is a real b***h.
According to Alastair Crooke, what happened is this:
1) Israel intended a major attack with 2-3 waves of aircraft, led by "stealth" F-35s to take out Iranian air defense followed by F-15s and F-16s for the followup attack.
2) The F-35s got painted by an "unknown Iranian air defense" system. They got scared, fired off their GPS-guided missiles which mostly failed due to Iranian and probably Russian GPS spoofing, which has been a constant for months in the region. And then they ran.
3) The followup attack aircraft would be sitting ducks for Iranian AD if they continued the attack, so the second and possible third wave were recalled.
4) Netanyahu and the western MSM declare "success".
I initially thought Israel would do an unconventional retaliation using their Jericho missiles and possibly their submarine cruise missiles. I couldn't understand how Israel could launch such a lame attack as the results indicated. Now I get it: Israel did intend a massive attack. It just failed miserably.
According to Colonel Douglas Macgregor, he's heard that Israel is planning some sort of followup attack. I suspect he may be right. I said before that Israel had to "go big or go home", and this latest attack wasn't that. So they may be planning something else. Using Jerichos and submarines would avoid or at least somewhat mitigate the problems with using aircraft. Although I suspect Iran will still be able to shoot most of them down.